Towards the end of each school year, teachers and parents can find themselves faced with a vexing question: should my child repeat his/her school grade? Some may be driven to this question on the basis of social immaturity while others may be driven by failures to achieve the academic standards set for each grade level. Although the prevalence of grade retention in Australia is far lower than in countries such as the USA, anecdotal evidence suggests that its use as an intervention method continues. This brief article will summarise the available evidence to assist teachers and parents in making a difficult decision.

Who is retained?

The characteristics of students who are retained in a grade are wide and varied and there is very little Australian-based literature. However, it is safe to say that those who are retained tend to be:

Male

Experience academic failure or delay

Have poor classroom conduct

Display emotional immaturity

Perceived as being less competent by both parents and teachers.

Does grade retention improve student outcomes?

Academic achievement

There have been scores of studies conducted since the 1970’s on the issue of grade retention. Many of them, however, suffer from significant methodological and statistical flaws. One should be careful therefore in relying too much upon the data from a single study; particularly if one is not familiar with sound research and statistical methodology. Fortunately a number of reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted which obviate the need for interpretation of individual studies (e.g., Holmes, 1989; Holmes & Matthews, 1984; Jackson, 1975; Jimerson, 2001).

On balance, these reviews have indicated that grade retention either has a negative impact on academic achievement (relative to equivalent promoted peers) or that the effect is null. That is, using retention as an intervention tool has little effect on academic achievement. When positive effects on academic achievement are reported they tend to diminish over time. Indeed, any benefits on achievement are lost when the retained children and their equivalent promoted peers face new material (e.g., Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland & Sroufe, 1997).

Mental health

Two studies have reported that older primary school children view grade retention as being in the top three stressful life events: along with losing a parent and going blind (e.g., Anderson, Jimerson & Whipple, 2005). Young children view retention as a punishment and experience sadness, fear and anger when not promoted. In the short-term retained children can face social isolation. For example, there is some evidence showing that peers choose younger same age peers with whom to play rather than the older retained child. In the longer-term retained students tend to experience poorer social adjustment and emotional health, including lower self-esteem and perceived competence, than equivalent promoted peers (e.g. Jimerson et al., 1997).

Student behaviour

The presence of behaviour problems is a predictor of grade retention. Yet the evidence suggests that retention in a grade actually exacerbates the problem (e.g., Jimerson et al., 1997). In male students, grade retention can has long lasting adverse effects on inattentiveness, oppositional behaviour and aggressiveness (Pagani et al., 2001). A similar ‘spike’ in disruptive behaviour is typically seen in female students; however, unlike their male counterparts females display these behaviours for just a short period.

Does timing of retention affect outcomes?

Some authors have argued that age and maturity are significant factors in early school success and that perhaps holding children back will lead to better academic outcomes. Despite the intuitive appeal of holding back a student seen as immature, the evidence does not support the practice. While retention in later grades may be more harmful than when conducted in early grades, the effect is relative and does not mean that early retention is useful or effective.

The alternatives

The most often quoted alternative to grade retention is grade (or social) promotion, where the student is promoted along with his or her grade-peers. While some studies have reported small benefits for promoted students over retained peers, both groups perform more poorly than control students (those without any learning, emotional or behavioural difficulties; Silbergitt, Jimerson, Burns, Appleton & James, 2006). In other words, in the best possible case the promoted student will do slightly better than the retained student. However, both will continue to experience significant difficulties within the areas of function identified as being impaired. Grade promotion on its own then is hardly an alternative to retention.

What is required is grade promotion coupled with intensive intervention methods designed to specifically target the identified weaknesses. Even before this occurs, schools can reduce the possibility of retention through a process of early identification of children ‘at-risk’ (e.g., of reading or learning difficulties). Theoretically-driven and evidence- based early intervention programs (e.g., Direct Instruction programs for word-reading and oral comprehension skills, social skills programs and teacher training in behaviour change) can prevent the failure that leads to the dreaded question of to repeat or not to repeat.

** UPDATE

When I wrote this article in 2007 I suggested that “What is required is grade promotion coupled with intensive intervention methods designed to specifically target the identified weaknesses.”

In fact, there is no evidence for this statement. To settle the question of grade retention forever we would have to conduct a study with four equivalent groups. Group 1 is retained with no additional intervention. Group 2 is retained with the “intensive intervention” I suggested. Group 3 is promoted with no additional intervention. Group 4 is promoted and given “intensive intervention”.

Of course, this study will never pass an ethics committee and therefore will never be conducted. We are therefore stuck with making decisions on less than perfect evidence. On balance, the probabilities still favour grade promotion + intensive intervention.

Silbergitt, B. Jimerson, S.R., Burns, M.K., Appleton, J.J. (2006). Does the timing of Grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early versus later retention. School Psychology Review, 35(1).

The release of international literacy results and Australia’s poor performance (27th out of 45 countries in year 4 reading, the lowest of any English-speaking nation) has prompted leading academics and clinicians to write an open letter to Federal and State Ministers of Education. The letter points to problems with the way teachers are trained to teach reading; that is, they are not. It urges Ministers to take the vast scientific literature on reading and reading difficulties into account when making policy. We can but hope.

The letter and on a companion piece from The Australian newspaper is attached below. Here is a link to Jennifer Buckingham’s excellent op-ed in The Financial Review on the same topic.

It feels like 90% of the products being hawked as treatments for learning and developmental disorders like dyslexia, language impairments, autism, Asperger’s and ADHD make claims about the brain. Claims include:

“based on brain science”.

“designed by neuroscientists”

“brain based”

“neuroplasticity”

“sharpen memory and attention with brain games and tools”

“change your brain”.

There’s a good reason why companies invoke brain science in selling products. Research has shown that consumers are more likely to rate a claim as credible if it is accompanied by a picture of a brain image (McCabe & Castel, 2008). This seems to happen even if the claim is complete nonsense. Is it any wonder that programs and products (see here, here and here for examples) invoke the brain in the marketing process? It seems human lose their powers of reasoning when presented with a brain.

The neuroscientist Molly Crockett has given a recent TED talk titled “Beware neuro-bunk” in which she cautions against placing too much stock in claims ‘based on neuroscience’.

Crockett cautions us that there’s always more to the story than the brain images. She says “if someone tries to sell you something with a brain on it, ask to see the evidence. Ask for the part of the story that’s not being told.”